DESIGNING IN THE CONTEXT OF COMPLETE STREETS Module

DESIGNING IN THE CONTEXT OF COMPLETE STREETS Module 2 Design Flexibility

DESIGN FLEXIBILITY Flexibility existing to design safe, comfortable, and convenient Complete Streets for all users. From the AASHTO Green Book 2011, p. xii “The intent of this policy is to provide guidance to the designer by referencing a recommended range of values for critical dimensions. Good highway design involves balancing safety, mobility, and preservation of scenic, aesthetic, historic, cultural, and environmental resources. . This policy is therefore not intended to be a detailed deign manual that could supersede the need for the application of sound principles by the knowledgeable design professional. Sufficient flexibility is permitted to encourage independent designs tailored to particular situations. ”

Transect Zones, Smart Code Source: Congress of New Urbanism Design Flexibility: Context Design in Context of the Land Use

Who are you accommodating? How will you accommodate them safely? Design Flexibility: Context Design in Context of the Modal Emphasis Graphic Credit: FHWA Achieving Multimodal Networks, 2016

DESIGN VS. CONTROL VS. MANAGED VEHICLE DESIGN VEHICLE CONTROL VEHICLE MANAGED VEHICLE Source: NACTO, Don’t Give Up at the Intersection

DESIGN FLEXIBILITY

STANDARDS Official FHWA Guidance Memo-Flexible Design dated August 20, 2013 Expressed support for taking a flexible approach to bicycle and pedestrian facility design Encourages agencies to go beyond the minimum requirements

PLANNING & DESIGN “STANDARDS” AASHTO “Green Book” 2011/Local State Highway Design Manual MUTCD 2009 Edition AASHTO Pedestrian Guide, 2004 AASHTO Bike Guide 2012 Edition

MUTCD “The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is incorporated by reference in the 23 CFR 655 and shall be recognized as the national standard for all traffic control devices installed on any street, highway, bikeway or private road open to public travel…” 2009 MUTCD.

WHY NATIONAL STANDARD? Uniformity of design and placement of Traffic Control Devices is critical to safe operation for all roadway users. Consistency of TCD’s with traffic code/rules of the road. The US UVC has not been updated since 2001 (ish)

HOW ARE CHANGES MADE TO THE MUTCD? Technical Committees develop proposals Council approves (or not) Sponsors review and comment (AASHTO et al) Technical Committees resolve comments and revise proposals Council final approval Forward to FHWA for “rule making process” and incorporation into MUTCD

HOW ARE CHANGES MADE TO THE MUTCD? Changes require “rule change” process including public notice in the Federal Register and public comment period. Process handled through the Federal OMB. Executive Branch and OMB responsible for prioritization of rule changes. MUTCD update in the works. Interim Approvals fill the gap.

WHAT IS AN INTERIM APPROVAL (IA)? “Interim approval allows interim use, pending official rulemaking, of a new traffic control device, a revision to the application or manner of use of an existing traffic control device, or a provision not specifically described in this Manual. The issuance by FHWA of an interim approval will typically result in the traffic control device or application being placed into the next scheduled rulemaking process for revisions to this Manual. ”

MUTCD-FHWA INTERIM APPROVALS (IA’S) IA-11 RRFB IA 2004 Use of Clearview font for Guide Signs § This IA has been discontinued IA-12 Traffic signal photo enforced sign 11/2010 IA-13 Electric vehicle charging station sign 04/2011 IA-14 Green colored pavement for bike lanes 04/2011 IA -15 Alt Design for US Bike Route Sign M 1 -9 06/2012 IA-16 Bicycle Signal Face 12/2013 IA-17 3 -Section Flashing Yellow Arrow Signal Face IA-18 Bicycle Box

OBTAINING INTERIM APPROVALS Any jurisdiction that wishes to use a device or application that has received Interim Approval must submit a written request to the FHWA, Director of the Office of Transportation Operations. The request must indicate whether blanket jurisdiction-wide approval is being requested or must state the location(s) where the device will be used, and must include the jurisdiction's agreement to comply with items B, C, and D in paragraph 18 of Section 1 A. 10 of the 2009 MUTCD. A State may request Interim Approval for all jurisdictions in that State. The letter of request (on agency letterhead) should be addressed to the Director of the Office of Transportation Operations, Federal Highway Administration, and should be sent electronically as an attachment (PDF or Word Document) to an email to: MUTCDofficialrequest@dot. gov.

REQUESTS TO EXPERIMENT

DEVIATIONS FROM MUTCD GUIDANCE Q: In Section 1 A. 13, the definition of "Standard" contains a new sentence that was not included in the 2003 definition--"Standard statements shall not be modified or compromised based on engineering judgment or engineering study. " This seems to limit the ability of engineers to be flexible in applying Standards to a given location. Why was this sentence added? A: The new sentence is consistent with the FHWA's longstanding interpretation of Standard statements, which are very different from Guidance statements in the MUTCD. Since the 2000 edition of the MUTCD, the word "shall" in a Standard statement has been identified as denoting a "required, mandatory, or specifically prohibitive practice" whereas the word "should" in a Guidance statement has been identified as denoting a "recommended, but not mandatory, practice in typical situations, with deviations allowed if engineering judgment or engineering study indicates the deviation to be appropriate. " With each subsequent revision or new edition of the MUTCD, the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, in its recommendations, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in its decisions, have consciously made carefully-considered choices on whether a provision is to be a Standard or a Guidance statement based on these definitions. It has been clearly understood that "shall" conditions are mandatory in all cases and that if flexibility is needed to allow deviations based on engineering judgment or study, then a Guidance statement is appropriate, or else one or more Options are added to modify the Standard and thereby provide some specific flexibility.

AASHTO PEDESTRIAN GUIDE Last updated in 2004 Update/revision currently in preparation More info available offered at www. bikepedinfo. org

AASHTO BICYCLE GUIDE Updated in 2012 Expanded from 75 to over 200 pages 3 chapters to 7 chapters Expanded information on intersection treatments PDF’S of webinars available offered at www. bikepedinfo. org Major update underway (separated bike lanes, bike boulevards, intersection improvements and more!): coming 2021

NACTO GUIDES

ITE / CNU GUIDE § The ITE and CNU Designing Urban Walkable Thoroughfares, 2010 builds upon the flexibilities provided in the AASHTO Guides.

OTHER GUIDES

DESIGN FLEXIBILITY Setting Design Criteria: § The AASHTO Green Book allows for flexibility by providing a range of values. § Functional classification alone may not take into account the local context and design impacts beyond traffic service. § FHWA controlling criteria revised on May 5, 2016. § Only two criteria for “low speed” roadways.

LANE WIDTH - AASHTO GREEN BOOK, 2011 Design Flexibility: Design Criteria and Lane Width: Range 9 – 12 feet depending on speed capacity, and context. Allow 10 -foot lanes in low speed environments (<45 mph) Source: FHWA Achieving Multimodal Networks, 2016

Design Flexibility: Design Speed Matters Source: FHWA Achieving Multimodal Networks, 2016

Statistics are Clear! We have to change the way we are designing and operating our transportation system. Design Flexibility: Design Speed Matters Source: Smart. Growth. America. org/dangerous-by-design-

ROAD DIETS Photo Credit: VDOT

OTHER NAMES FOR “ROAD DIETS” Travel lane removal/elimination Parking lane removal/elimination Street reconfiguration Right-sizing Reshaping Redesign Others?

Road Diets/Lane Elimination

Common Elements Utilize Existing Footprint Rebalance/reallocate street space to add features such as: § Two-way Left-turn Lane (TWLTL) § Bike Lanes § On-street Parking § Buffer Zones § Landscaping § Etc Road Diets/Lane Elimination Reference: Mark Doctor, PE, Road Diet

3 CRASH TYPES CAN BE REDUCED BY GOING FROM 4 TO 3 LANES: WHICH ONES?

3 CRASH TYPES CAN BE REDUCED BY GOING FROM 4 TO 3 LANES: 1 – REAR ENDERS X

3 CRASH TYPES CAN BE REDUCED BY GOING FROM 4 TO 3 LANES: 2 – SIDE SWIPES X

3 CRASH TYPES CAN BE REDUCED BY GOING FROM 4 TO 3 LANES: 3 – LEFT TURN/BROADSIDE X

Before Pottstown, PA

Changes Fewer travel lanes New bike lanes Reconfigured parking on one side New pavement After Before Pottstown, PA

Benefits of Road Diets for Pedestrians Reduce crossing distance Eliminate or reduce “multiple threat” crash types Install crossing island to cross in 2 simple steps Reduce top end travel speeds Buffer sidewalk from travel lanes (parking or bike lane) Reclaim street space for “higher and better use” than moving peak hour traffic Road Diets/Lane Elimination

DESIGN FLEXIBILITY – LET’S RECAP 1. What organizations have guides that can help you make decisions? 1. AASHTO 2. NACTO 3. ITE 4. FHWA